19th November, 2018
Kenya Airports Authority
P.O. Box 19001 – 00501
NAIROBI – KENYA.
REF: COMPLAINT ON FLAW KAA HUMAN RESOURCE POLICY
Thank you for the good progress made in the recent months, congratulations for the achievements made so far.
In your aspirations as you assumed office Sir, your centered your success to people, strategy and execution. Highlighted below are concerns affecting the staff against the policy that should guide the Human Resource (People).
Recruitment and Selection
This has been a thorny issue with un-ending processes marred with bias, nepotism, favoritism, irregularities and Unethical practices. It is also worth noting that, the ongoing recruitment processes for the authority is unfairly treating personnel with disregard to HR Procedures.
Personnel who have devoted time and are committed to deliver services to customers get demotivated in the long run become unproductive and engage in malpractices since as their efforts are not recognized. It is the wish of all personnel to be well remunerated, progress in their careers, support their families and the authority to achieve its objectives
The HR Manual approved 14th November 2011, which is still valid however, it does not address the following:
Level of Authority for Recruitment
The HR Policy provides in Clause 1 that “The authority to recruit employees in Grades S7 and above is vested in the board while those in Grade S6 and below in the Managing Director.” We have witnessed that recruitment processes not being carried out as per the HR policy for Grade 7 and above.
Clause 6 of the Policy on selection Committee states that “The Managing Director shall form Staff Selection Committees at various levels of the Authority’s operations to interview candidates in respect of Posts in Grade S6 and below and submit recommendations of the Most suitable candidate (s) for appointment. Each Selection committee shall have a minimum of Five (5) members, one of whom Must be from the relevant department and HRD. The board shall through its staff committee interview and make recommendations for appointment for positions of grades S7 and above.”
As per HR Policy it is a requirement that the recruiting department (Relevant) Must have representation in the selection and recruitment process.
The authority has not been changing the selection committees. The practice has since established standing committees for Selection and Interviews for Grades 6 and below which contravenes the policy and has become an avenue for corruption painting a negative image for the Authority.
On the Other hand, the mandate of the HR board Committee to select and interview for Grade 7 and above is being carried out by Management who have overtime had vested interest when shortlisting candidates in what has now been termed Assessment Interviews. The HR policy does not provide for delegation of the board’s responsibility for the selection and interview processes.
Upon successful interviews, we have witnesses staff being deprived of the deserved grades as advertised and filled substantively. HR has been insisting that a staff cannot pass a grade for example move from grade 4 to 6;
The policy in this respect refers to pay scales with respect to the appointments and not Grade as the practice adopted for recent appointments.
The HR Policy (E.11 and E.12 – Promotion and Policy On Acting Appointments) provides for Six (6) Months after which the position should be filled substantively or the incumbent is confirmed in the position.
The policy further provides that in the event the Acting appointment criteria set has more than one personnel, then the acting appointment should be on Rotation Basis.
With respect to the duration of the appointment in case of Acting appointment, there has been discrimination on the acting grades, duration and Length of acting, the allowances and terms of reference for personnel. We have witnessed cases personnel have been acting for more than six (6) Months, some to even 2-3 years.
We have also witnessed that staff are given summarily being dismissed from work due to poorly constituted committees, who are accused of being biased during hearings.
The investigators dealing with cases have been subjective – Only one investigator looks into cases and goes ahead to make far reaching recommendations.
Sir, these are lives we are dealing with some being bread winners with school going children and families they support. It would be prudent that we have a joint investigation of 2-3 investigators.
With the aforementioned Sir, we call upon your office and the Board of Kenya Airports Authority to rise above the occasion and rectify the mess.
Would you like to get published on this Popular Blog? You can now email Cyprian Nyakundi any breaking news, Exposes, story ideas, human interest articles or interesting videos on: email@example.com. Videos and pictures can be sent to +254 710 280 973 on WhatsApp, Signal and Telegram.